Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tribute in light

 
Two beams of light represent the former Twin Towers of the World Trade Center during the 2004 memorial of the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Reason
High quality image depicting high powered beams of light as well as the memorial from the 9/11 attacks. Also in public domain.
Articles this image appears in
September 11, 2001 attack memorials and services, Tribute in Light, Light beam, September 11, 2001 attacks;Creator:Photo by Derek Jensen (Tysto), 2004-September-11

Not promoted MER-C 07:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 
New York City, N.Y. (Sept. 9, 2004) - As the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack approaches, a test of the Tribute in Light Memorial illuminates a passing cloud above lower Manhattan. The twin towers of light, made-up of 44 searchlights near “Ground Zero,” are meant to represent the fallen twin towers of the World Trade Center. Depending on weather conditions, the columns of light can be seen for at least 20 miles around the trade center complex. U.S. Coast Guard photo by Public Affairs 2nd Class Mike Hvozda
Reason
High quality image depicting high powered beams of light as well as the memorial from the 9/11 attacks. Also in public domain.
Articles this image appears in
Tribute in Light
Creator
Public Affairs 2nd Class Mike Hvozda
  • Support as nominatorSirGrant 20:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Lots of compression artifacts.. Yzmo talk 21:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This pic was nominated before: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tribute in Light. However, I don't see all the artifacts everyone is complaining about. There's motion blur, but not jpeg artifacts that are suppose to be in the night sky. A lot of Wikipedians also said something about better pics online, but I frankly could not find any better ones after several google pages. It's unfortunate that the motion blur kind of takes away from an otherwise brilliant pic in my opinion. However, it's hardly distracting, even at full res. Inspiring, stunning, and of course encyclopedic. Jumping cheese 07:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took another careful look at the pic and I kind of see the artifacts that some people are complaining about. Those blocky artifacts in the haze do get annoying after staring at them for a while and focus in on them. However, they're not really noticeable, since they are basically all slightly different shades of black. I guess downsampling might work, but I know that's discouraged. Jumping cheese 07:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose very dynamic thumbnail. Subject matter is moving. The colors are interesting. That said, at 100%, the artifacts coupled with the building being not sharp ruin it for me. I wonder if there is an uncompressed version out there, of if the compression was in camera?-Andrew c 18:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support--Mbz1 17:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  • Oppose per Andrew. --Mad Max 02:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 07:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]